raw_request

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses use of the session bearer token, the default Accept format, and the viaSite behavior, adding meaningful context beyond the annotations. DestructiveHint already signals potential harmful operations, and the description does not contradict it, but it omits any caution about arbitrary POST/DELETE requests or response/error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the escape-hatch identity is front-loaded, and the route-specific exception for viaSite follows naturally. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a raw passthrough tool with no output schema and a destructive hint, the description gives enough to make a first call but omits response format, error behavior, and an explicit warning about mutating endpoints. The sibling context clarifies its role as the generic fallback, which helps, but the gaps remain notable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, yet the description partially compensates by specifying the path pattern and default Accept header. The viaSite parameter is also explained in the schema. However, jsonBody, contentType, method, and accept are left largely to their names or enum values, so the semantics are not fully fleshed out.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a raw, escape-hatch HTTP request tool for FamilySearch, with a concrete path example and default Accept header. It is distinguishable from the specialized siblings as a generic fallback, though 'any FamilySearch platform request' is broad and could be more explicit about its boundaries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Escape hatch' conveys that this is the fallback when no domain-specific tool applies, and the viaSite guidance gives a concrete routing instruction for a specific class of endpoints. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context signals are sufficient for an agent to decide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.